Russia is now facing the challenge of all successful societies; how to deal with all the foreigners from less successful societies who want to benefit themselves by seeking work and opportunity there.
Russia is facing a challenge for which there is little historical precedent. The current and future influx of labor and permanent migrants from Central Asia poses questions that cannot be answered with conventional assimilation strategies. For this reason, Moscow must act early and decisively to avoid the mistakes made by Western Europe and the United States.
While discussions around migration policy spark heated debate at home and occasional diplomatic tensions with Central Asian neighbors, this is far preferable to allowing the issue to fester. Left unresolved, mass migration could pose a direct threat to Russia’s political stability and institutional coherence. That is why the response must be shaped in Moscow’s traditional style: flexible, pragmatic, and unburdened by rigid ideological dogma.
There is no shortage of cautionary tales. Western Europe’s migration dilemma stems from two primary causes: the collapse of colonial empires, and post-war economic expansion that created a demand for low-skilled labor. Former colonial powers such as France and Britain kept strong ties with their former territories and welcomed waves of migrants, only to realize later that integration would prove far more difficult than anticipated.
European states are built on the idea of the ethnically homogeneous “nation-state.” Historically, this has meant low tolerance for cultural and religious diversity. Over centuries, outsiders were either assimilated or excluded. When former colonial subjects began to settle in France, Germany, and the UK in large numbers, the response was muddled. France declared all migrants “French” with no accompanying effort to integrate them. Britain and Germany pursued a version of multiculturalism that effectively encouraged segregation under the guise of tolerance.
The United States followed a different path. Its economy was flexible, its social safety net limited. For decades, this allowed migration to be framed purely in economic terms: migrants were simply new workers. But with the rise of social and economic inequality, climate change, and political polarization, the American consensus fractured. Migrants became a political issue. Republican leaders began calling for mass deportations and border walls, while Democrats welcomed migrants as potential voters. The result: a divided electorate and an unstable political system.
Western Europe’s response has been even more fraught. In the absence of credible solutions, right-wing, anti-globalist parties have surged in popularity. But these movements are not necessarily friendly to Russia. Figures such as Marine Le Pen or Italy’s right-wing coalition may oppose liberal orthodoxy, but they remain staunchly pro-NATO and anti-Russian. Even in smaller countries such as Finland, parties that grew by campaigning against migration ended up supporting NATO expansion and promoting Russophobic policies.
This trend – a migrant crisis fueling political radicalism – is real. And it would be naive to think Russia is immune.
The USA dealt successfully with its first immigration challenge by shutting it down for more than 40 years from 1921. But relentless pressure by the immigrant lobby finally succeeded in cracking the borders open in 1965 and the USA is now thrashing about in its death throes as President Trump heroically seeks to somehow mitigate the damage while battling all of the immigrant-infested institutions and organizations that seek to put their foreign interests above those of the original nation.
In Europe, the problem has metastasized even faster; the EU is already falling apart barely twenty years after first being formed. And so it’s doubtful that the Russians will fall for the “nation of immigrants” line that was used successfully on the USA, the UK, and Sweden, given the disastrous state of all three nations that fell for it.